I believe their inspectors will conclude chemical weapons have in fact been used. They'll name the type, and it will prove to be a type common throughout the region.

The U.S. will claim that the payload was delivered using Syrian rockets, and will probably show us pictures of pieces of Syrian rockets at the sites where the attacks occurred. Nobody will mention that such debris would naturally have been found there already, regardless of whether they deployed chemicals or not, and that it also could easily have been placed there, or that Syria uses the exact same rockets as everybody else in the region and which can be bought on the black market.

They'll say their piece. It will be bullshit. We will blow some shit up.

. And lo and behold, people of different "nationalities" who lived in marriage for 30 years without even reflecting over that fact all of a sudden kept hearing on TV that they should hate each other, cos, like, everybody else does already. Who knew!

Which TV? Tito controlled all TVs _________________True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ

. And lo and behold, people of different "nationalities" who lived in marriage for 30 years without even reflecting over that fact all of a sudden kept hearing on TV that they should hate each other, cos, like, everybody else does already. Who knew!

Which TV? Tito controlled all TVs

Tito died in 1980. Nationalism got prime air time slots around 1989._________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

Here, I think it's pretty obvious that somebody who wants the opposition to win has carried out this attack in order to bring the U.S. into it. I think the Obama Administration is playing along because it's good politics (a convenient distraction) and because it's generally to our advantage for them to keep killing each other a while longer. While the Muslims are busy killing each other, they're not unifying and seizing us by our vulnerable and sensitive oil testicles, or invading the Balkans again or something.

To bring you into it? Really? Don't be so naïve. Only two powers want the USA to meddle in Syria: the USA itself and Israel. Since past and recent history proves that the USA is not shy against killing civilians, I'll bet it's you.

BoneKracker wrote:

This isn't Iraq v2.

In a sense, I believe you'll be proven right: some countries/people did trust you in Irak, but nobody trusts you anymore (vassal states such as the UK don't count). The espionage against "allied" nations didn't help, either. Neither did the constant economic attacks against the Euro.

It's evident know that you have very, very little interest in the well-being of your so-called "allies". Indeed, I think we should expel every US force from the EU. While we are at it, let's dissolve NATO and the UN, and let you guys pay the full price of your military expeditions.

BoneKracker wrote:

While the WMD lie thing is the same, there we at least had interests at stake (Hussein invading neighbors, trying to seize control of oil supply, aiming to be Hitler of Arab world). What have we got at stake in Syria?

Let me help you.

- The production of oil in the USA is peaking. An unstable Middle East means both higher prices and more demand for you. A good help in times of crisis.

- The USA is very, very far away from the Middle East. However, it's pretty close to the EU, Russia, and even China. The USA won't necessarily improve in absolute terms if these regions get affected by the ensuing chaos, but it will in relative terms.

- Military-industrial complex. There are still some insane idiots who believe that wars are good for the economy. There are also those who know that wars are good for their economy.

- Assad has good relations with Russia and Iran. Again, this is against the interests of the USA and Israel._________________"Freedom incurs responsibility; that is why so many men fear it." - George Bernard Shaw

. And lo and behold, people of different "nationalities" who lived in marriage for 30 years without even reflecting over that fact all of a sudden kept hearing on TV that they should hate each other, cos, like, everybody else does already. Who knew!

Which TV? Tito controlled all TVs

Tito died in 1980. Nationalism got prime air time slots around 1989.

How did the CIA took control of TVs in those 9 years?
Non-serbs always considered the FYR a serbian oppression It was Tito (a croatian probably of Italian descent) that kept things together..._________________True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ

Looks like the UK is being the political head on this one out of the tag team of US:UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23864124_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

The greatest news broadcaster of the world had presented the legal basis of Western intervention in Syria. Unfortunately, I missed it. All the reasons looked valid._________________"Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated, until defeat has been accepted as a reality." -- Bruce Lee

. And lo and behold, people of different "nationalities" who lived in marriage for 30 years without even reflecting over that fact all of a sudden kept hearing on TV that they should hate each other, cos, like, everybody else does already. Who knew!

Which TV? Tito controlled all TVs

Tito died in 1980. Nationalism got prime air time slots around 1989.

How did the CIA took control of TVs in those 9 years?
Non-serbs always considered the FYR a serbian oppression It was Tito (a croatian probably of Italian descent) that kept things together...

Don't be binary. It didn't take control.
Save that for the arguing at your local taverna while waving your arms about._________________“If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him”

The UN inspectors say they need four more days to determine if chemical weapons have been used and then more time to more thoroughly analyze what they've collected and prepare a report. Meanwhile, the Obama Adminisration and the Obama dick-sucking press are widely reporting that "there's absolutely no doubt" that it was the Syrian government.

The UN Special Envoy to Syria says the U.S. is not allowed to attack without approval from the Security Council, and that "international law" is very clear on this:

Quote:

"I think international law is clear on this. International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council. That is what international law says," he told a press conference in Geneva.

"I must say that I do know that President Obama and the American administration are not known to be trigger-happy. What they will decide I don't know. But certainly international law is very clear."

Brahimi said it seemed that "some kind of substance" had been used near Damascus on Aug. 21, killing hundreds of people, but that he awaited evidence from Western powers as well as UN inspectors currently visiting the sites.

To compel and/or give the U.S. an excuse to intervene on their behalf with its mighty weapons. They're starting to lose, and this would likely turn the tide of the war.

The sacrifice of a few hundred lives is a small cost for victory. 70,000 or so (on their side alone) have died fighting for it already, and they're getting desperate.

Also, the opposition is not one homogenous entity trying to bring down the regime there and the FSA is only one of many groups, each with a different agenda. There are patriotic, secular, democratic Syrians who want freedom from Ba'athist oppression. There are Islamists (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood) who want to institute a traditional theocracy. There are Shiites trying to destroy and seize a Sunni state. There are ethnic Turkish groups fighting oppression. There are ethnic Kurdish groups fighting oppression. There are Salafi Jihadis. There's Al Qaeda.

If the opposition (which is currently losing) were to succeed, those groups would then battle it out for control, and they have very, very different ideologies. They don't like each other at all; they just happen to share a common enemy at present.

So this isn't a question of somebody "attacking themselves". It's a question of somebody sacrificing a few people (ones whom they might see as enemies ultimately anyway) to turn the tide of the war and achieve victory. The groups most likely to do that, and to have access to chemical weapons either hidden locally or smuggled in from elsewhere, are the militant Islamist groups.

Furthermore, there's also the possibility that this attack was perpetrated or facilitated by a foreign country with an interest in the outcome.

I will keep the FSA doing this as a false flag to get the US involved as a possibility in mind.

I just don't believe it's that complex though or they did that though, I think Assad's forces used chemical weapons there, it was on opposition territory, I think he thought because there wasn't intervention for years beforehand why would there be now.

A Syrian woman gave birth at sea during a risky Mediterranean crossing to Italy by up to 191 refugees fleeing the war-riven country who arrived on Wednesday, officials said.

Why would anyone shoot at refugee ships?

Well apparently the Syrian regime used poisonous gas on Syrian people, for this reason other Syrian people are going to bombed randomly, so why not shoot the refugee ships? There are Syrians on board, and they are either Assadist fleeing the rebels (or the bombs) or rebels (=al quaedists)

Prenj wrote:

Save that for the arguing at your local taverna while waving your arms about.

Yeah ok your story about declassified documents found in a public library is a lot more credible than reality ....._________________True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ

Let Russia & China do the intervening, if there is to be any at all. Syria's their friend after all.

Which is precisely why they wouldn't do a thing.

The only military operations I'd agree with is nailing Syria's NBC and heavy weapon depots from the air. The Syrians need to sort their own shit out. But no doubt the MIC lobby is giddy with anticipation of yet another pointless and over-reaching war so it probably wont stop there._________________

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.

To compel and/or give the U.S. an excuse to intervene on their behalf with its mighty weapons. They're starting to lose, and this would likely turn the tide of the war.

The sacrifice of a few hundred lives is a small cost for victory. 70,000 or so (on their side alone) have died fighting for it already, and they're getting desperate.

Also, the opposition is not one homogenous entity trying to bring down the regime there and the FSA is only one of many groups, each with a different agenda. There are patriotic, secular, democratic Syrians who want freedom from Ba'athist oppression. There are Islamists (e.g., Muslim Brotherhood) who want to institute a traditional theocracy. There are Shiites trying to destroy and seize a Sunni state. There are ethnic Turkish groups fighting oppression. There are ethnic Kurdish groups fighting oppression. There are Salafi Jihadis. There's Al Qaeda.

If the opposition (which is currently losing) were to succeed, those groups would then battle it out for control, and they have very, very different ideologies. They don't like each other at all; they just happen to share a common enemy at present.

So this isn't a question of somebody "attacking themselves". It's a question of somebody sacrificing a few people (ones whom they might see as enemies ultimately anyway) to turn the tide of the war and achieve victory. The groups most likely to do that, and to have access to chemical weapons either hidden locally or smuggled in from elsewhere, are the militant Islamist groups.

Furthermore, there's also the possibility that this attack was perpetrated or facilitated by a foreign country with an interest in the outcome.

I will keep the FSA doing this as a false flag to get the US involved as a possibility in mind.

I just don't believe it's that complex though or they did that though, I think Assad's forces used chemical weapons there, it was on opposition territory, I think he thought because there wasn't intervention for years beforehand why would there be now.

I seriously doubt it was FSA. It was probably one of the Islamist groups.

it is almost certain that Syria used chemical weapons in Syria, but who within Syria actually used them evidence showing that both sides could have used them.
I'm still sticking to my General wanting the war over angle and using weapons to draw international community in was surest method - shame not enough breadcrumbs were laid to attribute blame at assad_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king